The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is very concerned by reports that Public Safety Minister Victor Toews approves the use, by CSIS, of information procured by torture.
Reportedly, the Minister said that CSIS may “share the most complete information available at the time with relevant authorities including information based on intelligence provided by foreign agencies that may have been derived from the use of torture or mistreatment.”
CCLA supports the prioritization of protecting human life, safety and property – but we do not believe that the “fruits of torture” will further these goals. Rather, we believe that torture is incompatible with security.
Torture is the worst physical or mental abuse that can be inflicted upon a human being, and as such, it has been criminalized by civilized nations and absolutely prohibited in international law. The contemporary international law ban on torture was born out of the ashes of World War II, when the international community learned of the atrocities committed upon human beings who were prisoners of war or held in concentration camps. At that time, the world determined that the only way to prevent such evils from recurring was to recognize that there can never be a justification for one human being to perpetrate torture upon another human being. This cornerstone of the international legal framework, which is also part of the Canadian constitution and Criminal Code – permits the punishment of terrorists, but the torture of no one.
To reverse these fundamental beliefs — to practice or condone torture — is ultimately to legitimize an insidious violence that will seep into all spheres of society and human relations. Torture corrupts not only legal systems, it also corrupts human beings.
A Canada that condones torture – even abroad — will devolve into a very different society than that which we know today. Further, by condoning torture abroad, we expose Canadian troops, citizens and residents to the risk of torture if they are captured or detained abroad.
Torture does not occur in a vacuum. It is inevitably accompanied by a host of other serious human rights violations including the encouragement of security and law enforcement officials to engage in brutal and vicious behavior.
Information procured from torture is not only immoral and illegal – it can often be unreliable. Former US army and FBI interrogators have reported that torture is an unreliable source of information. The US army manual 2006 states that ‘torture is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the collector wants to hear’.
The debate on torture has been amplified in the United States with allegations and admissions of “coercive techniques” at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Prominent Americans such as Colonel Dwight Sullivan, head defence lawyer at the US Office of Military Commissions, and US Senator John McCain – have publicly stated that the ‘waterboarding’ of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided “false and misleading information” — and it was the lawful interrogation of detainees held elsewhere that provided useful information.
Indeed, human rights lawyers have long argued that torture is unreliable in addition to being immoral and illegal. Individuals being tortured are prone to say whatever they believe the torturers want to hear, in order to stop their suffering. In other cases, individuals are trained to provide false information to intentionally deceive their torturers. In yet other cases, an individual who is wholly innocent of the suspicions against him or her may be subjected to torture.
Proponents of torture argue that in some cases, the only way to get “life-saving information” is through torture. We disagree. Experienced interrogators – including retired US army and FBI officials – have dismissed the “ticking bomb’ scenario as rife with flawed premises. Over and over, history has shown us that lawful interrogation methods have proven more successful than unlawful methods.
CCLA believes that Canada’s commitment to the international absolute prohibition against torture is paramount and should not be undermined in any way. Accepting the fruits of torture, as the Minister suggests, is incompatible with such a commitment and leads to the condoning practices that are abhorrent to the Canadian constitution. We urge the Minister to return to the initial position that a firm commitment against the use of torture and its fruits is at the heart of the fight against terrorism.
